Delaware Supreme Court in Pyott Reverses Chancery Court Ruling That Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply in Certain Shareholder Cases

by Dechert LLP
Contact

The Delaware Supreme Court in Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System reversed on April 4 a controversial ruling by the Chancery Court that a California federal court’s dismissal with prejudice of a shareholder derivative action under Delaware Chancery Rule 23.1 does not preclude other shareholders from maintaining identical derivative actions in Delaware courts.1 The Chancery Court’s decision, if left to stand, could have resulted in further proliferation of shareholder derivative suits, each of which would have to be litigated on an individual basis.

In a shareholder derivative action, shareholders seek to bring claims on behalf of a corporation by either demanding that the board of directors file the requested suit or by filing the suit on their own and alleging that a pre-suit demand on the board would have been futile. In Pyott, two groups of shareholders filed separate actions in California federal court and Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of Allergan, Inc., a pharmaceutical company and the maker of Botox. The actions were filed shortly after Allergan pled guilty to misbranding charges based on allegations of off-label marketing, and agreed to pay $600 million in civil and criminal fines. Both shareholders claimed that demand on the board would have been futile and should be excused. The California federal court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs had failed to establish demand futility under Rule 23.1. The defendants in the Delaware Chancery Court then moved to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs in that case were collaterally estopped from pursuing their action by the California court’s ruling.

The Chancery Court denied the defendants' motion, holding that the Delaware plaintiffs were not collaterally estopped from proceeding for two reasons.2 First, the Chancery Court held that, under Delaware law, a shareholder who brings a derivative action is not in privity with the other shareholders unless and until the defendant’s Rule 23.1 motion to dismiss is denied and the shareholder has received permission from the court to litigate on behalf of the company. Second, the Chancery Court, sounding a familiar refrain against so-called “fast filers,” held that the California plaintiffs were not adequate representatives because they failed to make a request for the corporation’s books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

Practitioners and commentators expressed concern that the Chancery Court’s opinion, if adopted by other courts, would make it more difficult for companies to defend derivative suits. In the wake of a corporate trauma, shareholders often file multiple derivative suits in courts around the country. One of the most effective ways for companies to dispose of such actions is to obtain dismissal of one action based on demand futility, then move to dismiss the other actions based on principles of collateral estoppel. The Chancery Court’s ruling threatened to take this arrow from the defendant’s quiver and allow plaintiff’s law firms to engage in consequence-free nationwide forum-shopping.

The parties appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed.

As a threshold matter, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution required the Chancery Court to apply California or federal collateral estoppel standards. Because California and federal courts have held that shareholders are in privity with one another prior to a Rule 23.1 dismissal, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the Delaware action was barred by the California court’s ruling. The Delaware Supreme Court declined to rule on whether shareholders were in privity with one another prior to denial of a Rule 23.1 motion under Delaware law. The court noted that the Delaware Chancery Courts are divided on the issue, but that courts in other jurisdictions have held that privity exists between shareholders prior to denial of a motion to dismiss.

The Delaware Supreme Court also held that the Chancery Court erred in announcing an irrebuttable presumption that derivative plaintiffs who file suit without first seeking books and records under Section 220 are inadequate representatives. While expressing sympathy for the Chancery Court’s concerns about shareholders who file before having thoroughly investigated their claims, the court held that the remedies for the problems created by such fast filers should be directed at the lawyers, not the shareholders, and that a shareholder who files a derivative suit immediately after a corporate trauma is not per se inadequate.

The Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling in Pyott is, for the most part, a victory for corporate defendants. By holding that a Rule 23.1 dismissal can be issue-preclusive as to other shareholders, Pyott may save companies from having to litigate the same demand futility allegations in multiple forums. However, the Delaware Supreme Court’s refusal to find that shareholders who fail to make a Section 220 books and records request before filing a derivative action are per se inadequate representatives could give comfort to plaintiff’s firms whose practice has been to race to the courthouse without having conducted any real investigation into the merits of their purported claims.

Footnotes

1 No. 380, 2012, 2013 WL 1364695 (Del. Apr. 4, 2013)

2 Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Pyott, 46 A.3d 313 (Del. Ch. 2012)

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP
Contact
more
less

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.